Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Yahoo! News reported A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague.

If his executive order was vague, then why does he not issue another one being more specific, and including this judge and her support of terrorist organizations.

Some parts of the Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists" were too vague and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said.

The order gave the president "unfettered discretion" to label groups without giving them a way to challenge the designations, she said in a Nov. 21 ruling that was made public Tuesday. The judge, who two years ago invalidated portions of the U.S. Patriot Act, rejected several sections of Bush's Executive Order 13224 and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups. However, she let stand sections that would penalize those who provide "services" to designated terrorist groups. She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs.

Michelle Malkin blogged This same judge ruled parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional that barred giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations in 2004. The same plaintiff and lawyer--David Cole and the Humanitarian Law Project representing the Liberation Tigers and the PKK--were involved in that case as in the present one. Michael Radu had a thorough analysis of the 2004 ruling and the plaintiffs here.

His conclusion then holds now:

One can only hope that Judge Collins will be overruled, if not by her colleagues on the Ninth Circuit (yes, miracles do happen), then by the Supreme Court. But regardless of what happens, we can draw valuable observations from these developments. The War on Terror has numerous fronts, many of them, unfortunately, within America itself, where sympathetic lawyers, “human rights” militants and inane judges can be the most dedicated enemies to national security.

Not seeing much comment on law blogs on the new ruling. Would really like to hear reactions from legal types.

Jay blogged I should really just stop right there. The ruling is praised by a lawyer for terrorist sympathizing, Center For Constitutional Rights! The Center for Constitutional Rights is openly anti-American and pro-terrorist. Groups suspected of ties to terrorism give money to CCR. The granddaughter of the executed Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg works there! At its 2004 annual convention, the CCR honored attorney Lynne Stewart, an open supporter of terrorism, indicted by the Justice Department for abetting the terrorist activities of her client, the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman.

Yes, if you are wondering, this judge was a Clinton appointee from 1994. One Freeper suggests The President should simply create another terrorist group by executive order: JACC….Judges Appointed by Clinton and Carter. Designate the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and several more on the list of supporters while you’re at it. Of course we are slightly overexaggerating, but we should be seeing more impeachments for insanity like this. This will probably make it to SCOTUS in appeals.

Amboy Times blogged "This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era." Did Mc Carthy ever have to deal with 3,000 dead in one day on US soil? Just wondering. This case leaves an important question unanswered, if the Commander in Chief, with the aproval of Congress can't identify the enemy, then who will?

Brian blogged Kind of funny that they’d bring up the whole “guilt by association” thing, because if you look at one of the major election themes of the Democratic Party, that was it. Look at Abramoff, Cunningham, Fey, Foley, Libbey, etc., and that was the meme: these guys allegedly did something wrong, perhaps even criminal. They’re all Republicans. Therefor, all Republicans are criminals. Now, that’s obviously not the case, but it worked with enough of the voters to get the Dems back in power.

Anyway, back to the ruling. No surprise, but the judge was a Clinton appointee. Not that that makes all Clinton judges bad, but it sure as heck doesn’t help the notion, does it?